Big Content has lost its appeal against the Federal Court's decision that iiNet did not infringe copyright when it ignored allegations of theft by its customers sent to it by the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT). The judgement summary (PDF) offers two reasons for the decision. The first is that “iiNet had …
"AFACT has issued a statement in which it says the decision "exposes the failure of Big Media to keep pace with the online environment ..."
The Beer is for iiNet, who have been put through the wringer and come out clean. MPAA & RIAA must be spewing - they went after one of the smallest, easiest, most vulnerable targets they could, in the hope they'd get a decision that could be used as a weapon against bigger targets.
I was going to say It's like watching a runner fall at the first hurdle, but it's probably more like watching a runner false start, run over to the official and shoot themselves in the foot with the starting pistol.
"I was going to say It's like watching a runner fall at the first hurdle, but it's probably more like watching a runner false start, run over to the official and shoot themselves in the foot with the starting pistol."
...and then attempt to sue the official for not stopping him from doing that.
See the AFACT spin
Spin, AFACT, spin!
Not to mention they're MPAA puppets, per cablegate. Inferring that because you didn't get what you wanted means you therefore have a right for legislation to get your way any road is maybe a tad arrogant.
And ISPs elsewhere having a stake in monetizing content? Not really. That's the telcos, discontent to deliver mere data pipes, for transporting "value added" data is so much more profitable. Like voice, or SMS, or charging extra for "roaming". *ISPs* don't mind, and if they know what's good for them they stay well away from meddling with the bits they're transporting, because it brings with it quagmires full of meddling interest- and pressure groups. Like, oh, this bunch of stringpuppets.
It's a bit like, oh, upscale specialty shops vs. low-margin high-volume supermarkets. It's big entertainment's failure to adapt to the changing structure of their markets that's making them meddle with everyone else, refusing to really see, nevermind meet the elefant in their own living room. Does that entitle them to legislation to make everyone else pay for their own failings? I think not.
Re: See the AFACT spin
I beg to differ.
As someone who has worked in architecture and R&D for a major telco - the problem of Telcos is exactly that - they DO NOT HAVE A CLUE on how to meddle with bits for fun and profit. At the very best bit meddling is defined as requirement by a fossil which thinks that he is selling a circuit and was competent 20 years ago when the telco was civil service and was selling circuits. So he wants everything be represented as a circuit and if everything else fails invents a technoreligion of the Holy Circuit. The more common case is when the bit meddling requirements are defined by a freshly out of business school MBA with no technical competence that has no clue how the Internet works and what flows on it and thus cannot comprehend on what does he break by meddling with a particular bit.
As someone who has also run an ISP (and a fairly big one too) in the olden days before telcos acquired most ISPs we did meddle with bits and we did it pretty well. Users were happy and things worked (I have written some of the systems to do that too). So all in all, we should all cherish and praise ISP bit meddling because they usually do it for the benefit of the user to make their User Experience better and more competitive.
Down with telco bit meddling though :)
I'll drink to iiNet as well.
What I don't understand is why there's so much copying of the shit they're making?
"What I don't understand is why there's so much copying of the shit they're making?
Because, even though YOU might not want lit, there are plenty of people who do.
Tell you what MPAA, er AFACT...
I'll second your call for more protection *of* copyright when you explain to me when and how I will eventually get decent protection *from* copyright.
Especially since *your* idea of copyright protection is "all of it is ours until the end of time and you'll pay us what we think is appropriate".
...and you pay us what we think is appropriate..."
...each and every time you watch / listen to something until we tell you it's no longer available.
Against Fairness, Advocating Copyright Trolling
Presumption of guilt
"...over half the usage of iiNet’s internet service by its customers (measured by volume) was represented by Bit Torrent file sharing which was known to be used for infringing activities,”
The way I read it there's no proof that 'infringing activities' were taking place, just the fact that torrents were being shared. But that tone seems to be trying to infer 'so they must all be guilty'.
Thank heaven for a sensible judgement.
the decision "exposes the failure of copyright law to keep pace with the online environment ..."
the decision "exposes the failure of media business models to keep pace with the online environment ..."
there, fixed it
"...bit torrent file sharing which is know to be used for infringing activities..."
and their point is what? e-mail is know to be used in phishing scams (a high percentage too). Are they suggesting banning the technology? If so, should we think about banning e-mail too?
Up your nose with a rubber hose!
What were the alleged offences based on?
Was it the fact that Bittorrent was used for transmission or did they actually sample the data?
My employer sends all manner of documents, RFQ's and tenders using Bittorrent.
Kudos to iiNet and the Australian High Court !
Alas, the MPAA, RIAA, and their clones and wannabes always have a much easier time of it here in Sweden, where not only the government, but also the judicial system knows on which side its bread is buttered....